Same-sex Anglican disunion

The couple holds hands before the altar as a priest guides them through their vows. "I take you to have and to hold from this day forward, to love and to cherish, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, as my companion, lover and friend."

The congregation responds: "Blessed be God who appears to us in their love."

There is the exchanging of rings, familiar scriptures, a kiss and a blessing on the couple's "acts of tenderness and intimacy." They may be crowned or anointed before Holy Communion. The priest may lead them in a procession around the altar, cover them with a veil or tie their hands with a cord.

This is not a wedding.

Nevertheless, "A Rite for the Celebration of Commitment to a Life Together" features a barrage of symbols from centuries of marriage rites. This 1996 text is an American example of the same-sex union rites that are shaking the 70-million-member Anglican Communion.

"This rite is clearly parasitic on marriage," said Edith Humphrey, a Canadian Anglican who teaches at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. "At least this American rite is in your face, so you know what is being communicated. That kind of candor is refreshing. ... This certainly looks like a marriage rite."

But most supporters say these rites merely bless existing same-sex relationships. This distinction is crucial, according to Vancouver School of Theology liturgist Richard Leggett.

"Despite some similarities to the marriage rite, the underlying theology and the distinctive liturgical elements define a covenant that is unique and that poses no threat to marriage as the sacramental union of a heterosexual couple," argued Leggett, commenting on a new Canadian rite.

Instead, this gives "liturgical expression to a new thing that God is doing in our midst, life-long stable and covenanted relationships for gay and lesbian disciples of Christ."

There is fire behind these academic words. After decades of guerrilla tactics, open Anglican warfare has erupted on three fronts.

In Canada, Bishop Michael Ingham -- after numerous delays -- on May 23 issued a same-sex union rite for use in his Diocese of New Westminster. Meanwhile, the Diocese of New Hampshire elected Father Gene Robinson as the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, guaranteeing pre-consecration debates at the U.S. General Convention that begins July 30 in Minneapolis.

That gathering also faces a California resolution seeking rites to express the church's blessing on "all couples living in life-long committed relationships of mutuality and fidelity outside the relationship of marriage, which mediate the grace of God."

Then Oxford Bishop Richard Harries appointed Father Jeffrey John, a gay theologian, as bishop of Reading. Nine evangelical bishops in England have publicly vowed a fight. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams called for dialogue, yet signaled he will not oppose John's appointment.

What is at stake? Sixteen Third-World archbishops from Kenya, South India, Uganda, the Philippines, Sudan, Tanzania and elsewhere responded to Ingham by declaring a state of "severed communion" with his diocese.

Archbishop Peter Akinola told the BBC that Nigeria -- with 10 archbishops, 81 bishops and 17.5 million Anglicans -- would "sever relationships with anybody, anywhere, anyone who strays over the boundaries" of traditional church doctrine. Robinson's election, he told the Guardian in Lagos, is "a Satanic attack on God's church."

But there is more to this debate than sex, said Humphrey. The new Canadian rite makes a crucial claim: "All human relationships have the potential to be agents of God's purpose. Regardless of the specific characteristics of the relationship, the act of blessing does not make the relationship more holy but rather, in giving thanks to God and invoking God's holy name, releases the relationship to realize its full potential as an expression of God's love."

This raises all kinds of questions about words such as "fidelity," "covenant," "sacrament" and "union," she said. In a marriage rite, God and the church create something new -- a sacred union that changes the relationship between the man and the woman. These new rites insist that the church is merely "blessing" an existing same-sex relationship.

"The whole premise is different. The relationship is already holy. It is already sacramental," she said. "The church is merely celebrating what the couple is already doing."

Plagiarism and the pulpit

One thing great preachers enjoy about traveling is that they can hear other people preach. But the American orator A.J. Gordon received a shock during an 1876 visit to England. Sitting anonymously in a church, he realized that the sermon sounded extremely familiar -- because he wrote it.

"The man in the pulpit was reading it verbatim without saying a word about the source. After the service, Gordon introduced himself and we can just imagine the pastor's reaction," said the Rev. Scott Gibson, director of the Center for Preaching at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary outside Boston.

Perhaps the pastor read one of Gordon's books or found the sermon in a journal. He might have lifted it from a major newspaper, because it was common in those days for sermons to be published in Monday editions.

But the preacher never thought the author would cross the Atlantic and land in one of his own pews, said Gibson, who is studying the history of plagiarism in preaching. It has always been hard for an offender to believe that a church member has read the telltale source or that a visitor with an excellent memory happened to be sitting in the right place at the wrong time.

"This is not a new problem," said Gibson. "Some people think the World Wide Web came along and suddenly you had thousands of pastors copying other people's sermons with a few clicks of a mouse. But there has always been a lot of laziness out there.

"Preachers get busy and they run out of time and then they just plain steal."

The temptations are timeless, but the Internet has raised waves of new ethical questions.

In his study, Gibson defines "plagiarism" as preaching someone else's sermon research or content without giving public credit for it. But is it plagiarism to use an outline or text the pastor has legally obtained -- even purchased -- from one of the thousands of preaching sites that have sprung up online? Is it acceptable to use a respected site such as SermonNotes.com without telling the congregation? What about quoting from the anonymous inspirational stories that arrive daily in everypastor's email? Is it wrong if a megachurch pastor has support staff members who do "ghost" work as researchers and writers? Does a preacher have to reveal each and every source of inspiration?

"It's hard to footnote sermons," said the Rev. Haddon Robinson, an internationally known teacher of preaching in Dallas and Denver before arriving at Gordon-Conwell. "There's no way to make people in the pews understand all of the sources you are using, especially if they're highly academic sources. I don't think anyone expects preachers to stand up there and quote all of their reference books and commentaries by name."

But all preachers read and hear stories and insights that they want to share with their flocks. It makes a sermon more colorful to feature a quotation by an author " who simply says something better than you can," said Robinson. Attributing direct quotes also adds authority, especially when quoting figures such as Martin Luther, C.S. Lewis or Billy Graham.

This is safe territory.

The danger is when pastors appropriate entire outlines or sermon texts and claim them as their own. Perhaps the strongest temptation is to personalize anecdotes that happened to other people. But it only takes seconds, noted Gibson, for a preacher to cite the source of a story or to say something like, "I heard a great sermon on this biblical text by pastor so and so and I want to share some of his insights with you." Some pastors add additional references in the Sunday bulletin or in study pages on the church website.

It's easy for preachers to play it straight, said Gibson. The question is whether many congregations have become so mesmerized that they will overlook plagiarism.

"Some people get so caught up in the experience of hearing that great preacher," he said. "It's not so much the content. It's his persona. It may not matter to them that he is using someone else's sermons. What you hear people say is, 'He's our preacher and it doesn't matter what he's doing. Let's move on.' "Some churches today just don't care."

J.K. Rowling, Inkling?

Harry Potter froze in terror as the hellish Dementors rushed to suck out his godfather's soul. But he was not powerless, because he had learned the Patronus Charm for use against the evil ones. So the boy wizard focused on a joyful memory and shouted, "Expecto Patronum!"

Salvation arrived in the form of a dazzling silver animal that defeated the ghouls and then cantered across the surface of a lake to Harry. It was as "bright as a unicorn," but on second glance was not a unicorn. It was a majestic stag that bowed its antlered head in salute and then vanished.

If C.S. Lewis or J.R.R. Tolkien had written this scene in "The Prisoner of Azkaban," literary critics and Christian apologists would know how to break the code, according to John Granger, author of "The Hidden Key to Harry Potter." They would parse the Latin charm and study author J.K. Rowling's delicate use of medieval symbolism.

"The key is that stag, which is often a Christ symbol. But she is not content to make it a stag. It's a stag that looks like a unicorn," said Granger, who teaches Latin and Greek in Port Hadlock, Wash.

"She's saying to the reader, 'A stag may be a reach for you. So I'll have it be a stag that looks like a unicorn, since that has been a universally recognized Christ symbol for ages.' It's almost, 'Let me make this clear for you.' "

But these symbols have eluded most readers who have bought 192 million copies of these novels in 55 languages. (Rowling requested Latin.)

This weekend bookstores are serving up the first 8.5 million copies of the 768-page fifth volume, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." The usual suspects will immediately say the usual things. Many Christians will quote Bible verses condemning magic. Academics will call the book a childish confection and analyze it as media myth and pop psychology. Librarians will give thanks that children are reading -- anything.

Granger believes they are missing the obvious: Rowling has baptized her work in medieval Christian symbols and themes that shape and define her tales of good versus evil. Potter's creator, he noted, received a superior education -- with studies in French and classical languages at the University of Exeter -- and has a working knowledge of ancient and medieval literature. She has made no effort to hide her admiration of great writers, especially Jane Austen and Lewis.

Granger has focused on her language and symbolism, in large part because of his similar studies in "Great Books" and ancient languages. He has also attempted to predict how these themes will play out in Rowling's future Potter novels.

"I started reading the Potter books as an Orthodox Christian father who had to explain to his oldest daughter why we don't read such trash," he said. "But once I started turning the pages the University of Chicago side of me kicked in."

Take that climactic scene in "The Prisoner of Azkaban," he said. The Latin "expecto," as used in the Apostles' Creed, is best translated "to look out for" or "to long for expectantly." And "patronus" means guardian, but can also mean "deliverer" or "savior." So Potter cries "I look for a savior" and a stag appears, one that looks mysteriously like a unicorn.

In the Middle Ages, noted Granger, stags were Christ symbols, in part because of the regeneration of their antlers as "living trees." A cross was often pictured in the prongs. Lewis uses a white stag in this manner in "The Chronicles of Narnia." Unicorns were also popular Christ symbols, portraying purity and strength.

Rowling repeatedly links Potter with creatures -- a phoenix, griffins, centaurs, hippogriffs, red lions -- used by centuries of Christian artists.

Her use of alchemy symbolism taps into medieval images of spiritual purification, illumination and perfection.

None of this is accidental, he said. Anyone who cares about Potter-mania must take Rowling more seriously.

"What we are seeing is a religious phenomenon taking place in a profoundly secular, profane culture," said Granger. "J.K. Rowling is pouring living water into a desert. ... She is mounting a head-on attack on a materialistic world that denies the existence of the supernatural and, so far, she is getting away with it."

Glad tidings for secularists

WASHINGTON -- Pollsters who pry into matters of faith know they have to phrase their questions carefully. One big question goes something like this: "What is your religion?" As a rule, few dare to answer "none." But researchers at the City University of New York made a subtle change in 2001 when updating their portrait of U.S. religious identities. They asked: "What religion do you identify with, if any?"

A stunning 14 percent said, "no religion" -- nearly 30 million Americans. Another question asked if respondents were religious or secular and 16 percent chose "secular."

"Those two words -- 'if any' -- made a big difference," said Fred Edwords, editorial director of the American Humanist Association. "Those two little words signaled that it was acceptable for people to say that they didn't believe in God or at least didn't practice any particular religion."

Other recent surveys have brought secularists similar glad tidings.

According to the National Election Studies, the percentage of Americans who say they attend weekly religious services fell from 38 to 25 percent between 1972 and 2000. Meanwhile, those that never attend services rose from 11 to 33 percent.

Ordinarily these kinds of numbers would inspire chatter in Washington. A rising number of openly secular voters would have a major political impact -- especially for Democrats.

"We are in touch with lots of people who are certainly to the left of theism and it's no surprise they are on the political left and, thus, Democrats," said Tony Hileman, executive director of the American Humanist Association. "Also, it's no surprise that all the religious extremists -- the names John Ashcroft and George W. Bush come to mind-- are on the political right and, thus, they are Republicans.

"This is one of the biggest divisions in American life today and we shouldn't be afraid to talk about it."

This chasm is often seen in the fine details of daily politics.

In the 2000 White House race, Voter News Service found that 14 percent of the voters said they attended religious services more than once a week and 14 percent said they never attended. The former backed Bush by a 27-percent margin and the latter Al Gore by a 29-percent margin.

Some of President Bill Clinton's advisors spotted a similar trend in

1996, while seeking to learn which poll questions would most accurately predict a voter's choice. These five worked best: Is homosexuality morally wrong? Do you every look at pornography? Would you look down on a married person who had an affair? Is sex before marriage morally wrong? Is religion very important in your life?

If voters chose "liberal" answers on three out of five, reported

Atlantic Monthly, the odds where 2-1 they would pick Clinton. The odds soared if they leaned left on four out of five. Those giving "conservative" answers went Republican, by precisely the same odds.

Public debate on "lifestyle" issues of this kind is a relatively new phenomenon, noted Edwords. There was a time when Baptists, Pentecostals and other conservative Protestants tended to shun political activism altogether, in part because they believed "politics was too sinful."

Then American culture began to radically change in the 1960s and '70s and issues of faith and morality heated up on both sides of the political aisle. Today, leaders of the American Humanist Association and other openly secular groups believe the headquarters of the Religious Right is not in Virginia Beach or in Lynchburg -- it's in the White House.

This has created a stronger coalition of humanists, secularists and liberal Christians and Jews that is united in opposition to what it believes is a dangerous blend of fundamentalism and government. This represents both opportunity, and risk, for the political left.

"The Republican Party wants to be the party of God," said Edwords. "But it's just as clear that Democrats don't want to stand up and say they are the godless party. They have to keep using religious language, even though that may make some of us secularists uncomfortable. What Democrats have to say is that their religion is broader and more inclusive and more tolerant. ... "We know they have to do that. It just doesn't pay to do politics while wearing atheism on your sleeve."

The modern rites of courtship

The theory behind "speed dating" is simple, even if the logistics sound complex. At many such events, young women sit in a circle surrounded by a circle of young men. For eight minutes participants ask the person in front of them some personal questions, hopefully adding new details to questionnaires they filled out beforehand.

The circles keep rotating one chair at a time, creating a series of face-to-face encounters. Organizers then round up the data and look for signs that something clicked for somebody.

"You don't waste a lot of time on one person, there is a large pool of people, they are pre-selected and they are not drunk. So there are some big advantages over the club scene," noted Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.

The very existence of "speed dating" is evidence that many single adults and their parents believe something has gone terribly wrong in the world of love and courtship, she said, during a recent Emory University conference on sex, marriage, family and faith.

This raises a serious question: Would it help if religious congregations started holding "speed dating" events of their own?

Whitehead thinks it is significant that some Catholics, Evangelicals and other highly committed religious believers are already starting Internet dating services. And then there is the network called JMOMS -- Jewish Mothers Organizing Matches. Sometimes a concept can be timely and timeless at the same time.

But these efforts are not the norm. Most religious institutions appear to have conceded love and romance to the secular powers that be.

"So many faith communities are totally oriented to married couples and those with children and they can't seem to catch up with the demographic realities that single people face today," said Whitehead. "Meanwhile, in the sexual free-for-all of our age, it is the conservative, the more traditional singles -- especially the women --who are going to get ditched. They are in the most vulnerable position, because the whole club and bar dating scene is just not going to work for them. The last thing they need is for churches to abandon them."

This void is a modern phenomenon. For centuries, said Whitehead, the rites of courtship took place in the context of three great institutions -- the extended family, the school and the church.

Religious leaders played a vital role in shaping the relationships that were later blessed at their altars.

"But today, all three institutions are increasingly remote from where people are in their adult life course when they begin to seriously look for a mate," she said. Most singles are "living independently, often far from home. They are also emotionally far from home. They are not going to pick up the phone and call mommy and daddy to talk about their dating prospects."

While writing her most recent book, "Why There Are No Good Men Left," Whitehead interviewed scores of single adults, especially young women. She also studied personal ads and shelves of bestsellers about dating.

What she found was confusion and conflicting values.

Modern singles are looking for "soul mates" and they fear divorce. But most also want mates who work out, eat right and have "some edge." What seems to matter the most, she said, is "competitive physical excellence." Love is defined in terms of chemistry, emotion and sex. The hard work of "testing the relationship" comes later.

Few seem concerned about faith. Most young singles that mention religion, she noted, want this religious affiliation to be as "diluted, mild and inoffensive as possible." They describe themselves with phrases such as "Jewish, but not very," "realistic Catholic," "Protestant, but not a Bible thumper" or "very spiritual, in a nondenominational way."

Thus, modern dating rites are defined by "The Bachelor," Maxim, "Friends," Self Magazine and other forces that focus more on perfect abdominals than moral absolutes.

If clergy and parents care, then they need to act, said Whitehead.

"What we have is an absence of places where serious, marriage-minded people can find each other," she said. "Our churches are not helping. Our colleges are not helping. The religious centers at our colleges and the alumni offices are not helping. ... It's like we have suddenly decided that young men and women are supposed to do this totally on their own."

Father John, DC evangelist

WASHINGTON -- In a matter of days, Father C. John McCloskey III will quietly perform rites in which two more converts enter the Roman Catholic Church.

This latest ceremony at Catholic Information Center will not draw the attention of the Washington Post. But that happened last year when Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas entered the fold. Some of McCloskey's earlier converts also caused chatter inside the Beltway -- columnist Robert Novak, economist Lawrence Kudlow and former abortion activist Bernard Nathanson.

"All I am doing is what Catholic priests must do," said McCloskey. "I'm sharing the Gospel of Christ, offering people spiritual direction and, when they are ready, bringing them into the church. ... It's a matter of always proposing, never imposing, never coercing and merely proclaiming that we have something to offer to all Christians and to all people.

"Call it evangelism. Call it evangelization. It's just what we're supposed to do."

But words like "conversion" and "evangelism" draw attention when a priest's pulpit is located on K Street, only two blocks from the White House. The flock that flows into the center's 100-seat chapel for daily Mass includes scores of lobbyists, politicians, journalists, activists and executives.

So it's no surprise that McCloskey's views have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, USA Today and elsewhere. His feisty defense of Catholic orthodoxy has landed him on broadcasts with Tim Russert, Bill O'Reilly, Paula Zahn, Greta Van Susteren and others.

This is a classic case of location, location, location.

McCloskey feels right at home. The 49-year-old priest is a native of the nation's capital, has an Ivy League education and worked for Merrill Lynch and Citibank on Wall Street before seeking the priesthood through the often-controversial Opus Dei movement. He arrived at the Washington center in 1998.

In addition to winning prominent converts, McCloskey has bluntly criticized the American Catholic establishment's powerful progressive wing, tossing out quotations like this zinger: "A liberal Catholic is oxymoronic. The definition of a person who disagrees with what the Catholic church is teaching is called a Protestant."

Many disagree. Slate.com commentator Chris Suellentrop bluntly said that while the urbane priest's style appeals to many Washingtonians, ultimately he is offering "an anti-intellectual approach. All members of the church take a leap of faith, but McCloskey wants them to do it with their eyes closed and their hands over their ears."

It is also crucial that McCloskey openly embraces evangelism and theconversion of adults from Judaism, Islam and other world religions. Formany modern Catholics this implies coercion, manipulation, mind controland, thus, a kind of "proselytism" that preys on the weak. In recentdiscussions of overseas missionary work many Catholics have suggestedthat they no longer see the need to share the faith with others andinvite them to become Christians.

The bottom line: Protestants do evangelism. Protestants try to convertothers. In the wake of Vatican II, Catholics have outgrown this kind ofwork.

"That's pure trash. That's a false ecumenism," said McCloskey. "That'ssimply not Catholic teaching. The Catholic church makes exclusivetruth claims about itself and cannot deny them. It doesn't deny thatthere are other forms of religion. It doesn't deny that these otherforms of religion have some elements of truth in them. ..."But we are proclaiming Jesus Christ and where we believe he can bemost fully found and that's the Catholic church. We cannot denythat." This issue will become even more controversial as America growsmore diverse.

Meanwhile, the number of nominally Christian adults who have not beenbaptized is rising. The children and grandchildren of what McCloskey calls the "bourgeoisie Catholics" are poised to leave the church. Soon,their fading ethnic ties will not be enough. Their love of old schoolsand sanctuaries will not be enough.

"This country is turning into Europe," he said. "People have gotten to the point where they are saying, 'Why bother even being baptized? We don't believe any of this stuff anymore.' I am encountering more people that I need to baptize, because their parent's didn't bother to do that, even though they were nominal Christians.

"In Europe that is normal and this is what is headed our way."

God-talk after The Matrix, part II

Predicting the future is dangerous, especially when a world-be prophet puts her thoughts in writing.

But that's what author Phyllis Tickle did two decades ago when she wrote: "Books are about to become the portable pastors of America." That turned out to be true. Now, in light of "The Matrix," she is updating that prophecy about how Americans talk about faith.

It helps to flashback to a statistical earthquake that rattled the book business.

In 1992 the company that dominates sales to libraries saw a stunning 92 percent rise in its religious trade. Then in 1994 religious sales by the giant Ingram Book Group soared 246 percent. In a few years this niche grew 500 percent, said Tickle, who has covered this trend for Publishers Weekly and in several of her two-dozen books.

The growth "was malignant," she said. "Bookstore owners kept telling me people would vanish into that back corner where the religious shelves were and stay for hours. When they did that, you just knew they should have been going to see their pastors. But they weren't doing that."

These seekers didn't buy into doctrines and denominations. They didn't want "theology." They wanted new ideas, images and spiritual stories. They wanted what Tickle began calling "God-talk" and millions started finding it with the help of cappuccino and Oprah.

And in 1999 everything changed again.

"When 'The Matrix' came out, it became the best treatise on God-talk that has ever been made," said Tickle. "It could not have been done with a book. It could not have been done with words. ... The primacy of place in creative, cutting-edge God-talk has shifted from non-fiction in the 1980s to fiction in the 1990s and now it is shifting again to the world of the visual, especially to the kinds of myths and stories we see in movies such as 'The Matrix.' We're talking about the manipulation of theological fantasies and this is a natural fit for visual media."

"Theology," she said, is found in the world of doctrine, history, academic credentials and ecclesiastical authority. But "God-talk" thrives far from most pulpits. Its standards are flexible, evolving, user-defined and rooted in small communities. This is a true "democratization of theology," she said, and can been seen as an extension of Protestantism's division into thousands and thousands of independent denominations, movements and churches.

But God-talk leaders are more likely to work in popular media than in religious institutions. As creators of "The Matrix" trilogy, Andy and Larry Wachowski are touching millions of lives. The first film grossed $460 million worldwide and shaped countless movies, computer games, music videos and commercials. Now, "The Matrix Reloaded" -- on a record 8,517 screens -- topped $130 million at the box office in its first four days. "The Matrix Revolutions" hits in November.

Writing in the Journal of Religion and Film, James L. Ford of Wake Forest University argues that these films offer a powerful fusion of themes from Buddhism, clashing brands of Christianity, Greek mythology, cyber-culture and legions of other sources.

"It is impossible to know what narratives will become the foundation myths of our culture," noted Ford, in his "Buddhism, Christianity and The Matrix" essay. "But epic films like The Matrix are the modern-day equivalent of The Iliad-Odyssey ... or various biblical myths. Indeed, one might well argue that popular films like 'The Matrix' and 'Star Wars' carry more influence among young adults than the traditional religious myths of our culture."

Tickle can trace this trend for decades, from the generic God of Alcoholics Anonymous to the nearly generic God of "Touched By An Angel," from the rise of the self-help publishing industry to waves of immigration that brought the mysteries of Eastern religion to Hollywood.

Mainstream religious leaders can argue about the ultimate meaning of all this, she said. But they cannot ignore it.

"The Matrix" has "posited a new theological framework," she said. "Now we have to find out the details. What is the primal cause for this world? Where is God? Who is God? Does what is going on in these films support or oppose a basic Judeo-Christian approach to morality? We don't know the answers to these questions yet"

God-talk and The Matrix I

The words of the scripture are clear: everything changes when someone is born again.

"Before his first or physical birth man was in the world of the matrix. He had no knowledge of this world; his eyes could not see; his ears could not hear. When he was born from the world of the matrix, he beheld another world," wrote Abdul Baha, son of the Bahai prophet Baha'ullah, nearly a century ago. Truth is, "the majority of people are captives in the matrix of nature, submerged in the sea of materiality."

When freed they gain a "transcendent power" and ascend to a higher kingdom.

Perhaps even to Zion.

Wait a minute. Does this mean that millions of moviegoers lining up at 8,400-plus theaters to see "The Matrix Reloaded" will witness the Bahai version of a Billy Graham movie? Or is this trilogy a door into a kung fu vigilante Buddhism?

Or is it some kind of neo-Christian parable?

The World Wide Web is jammed with sites offering precisely that spin. Isn't Keanu Reeves playing a super-hacker called Neo, a messiah whose coming was foreseen by the prophets, a Christ figure that is reborn, baptized, murdered and resurrected? Isn't his real name Thomas Anderson (Greek "andras" for man, thus "son of man")? Doesn't a character named Trinity save him?

Acolytes have compiled pages of similar references. Isn't Neo's teacher Morpheus a John the Baptist figure? Why is their ship called the Nebuchadnezzar? And it's a "Mark III, no. 11." Perhaps that is Mark 3:11, which says of Jesus: "Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, 'You are the Son of God!' "

There will be plenty of fresh clues in "The Matrix Reloaded" and the upcoming "The Matrix Revolutions." When it comes to spiritual goodies, this franchise that critics call the "R-rated Star Wars" has something to intrigue or infuriate everyone -- from Hollywood to the Bible belt.

No one questions the impact of "The Matrix," which grossed $170 million in the United States, $460 million worldwide and influenced countless movies, computer games, music videos and commercials. But the devotion of its true believers is revealed in another statistic. It was the first DVD to sell more than 1 million copies.

Meanwhile, Andy and Larry Wachowski have religiously avoided doing interviews that might dilute the mystery surrounding their movie.

But a fan in a Warner Home Video online chat session did mange to ask: "Your movie has many and varied connections to myths and philosophies, Judeo-Christian, Egyptian, Arthurian and Platonic, just to name those I've noticed. How much of that was intentional?"

To which the brothers replied: "All of it." While calling their beliefs "nondenominational," they did confirm that Buddhism plays a major role in "The Matrix." When asked if their work was shaped by the ancient Christian heresy called Gnosticism, they cryptically replied: "Do you consider that to be a good thing?"

While the first film draws images and details from many conflicting traditions, its worldview is deeply rooted in Eastern religions, especially Buddhism and Gnosticism, according to Frances Flannery-Dailey of Hendrix College and Rachel Wagner of the University of Iowa. Clearly, the big idea is that humanity's main problem is that it is "sleeping in ignorance in a dreamworld" and the solution is "waking to knowledge and enlightenment."

Writing in the Journal of Religion and Film, they note that the Gnostic messiah brings salvation through a secret truth that lets believers wake up and escape the shabby reality that surrounds them. Through training in the discipline of "stillness," this savior learns that what appears to be the real world is an illusion he can manipulate with his will. It's a gospel of esoteric knowledge, not repentance and grace.

But Wagner and Flannery-Daily ask: Where are the Gnostic gods in "The Matrix"?

"Divinity may ... play a role in Neo's past incarnation and his coming again as the One. If, however, there is some implied divinity in the film, in remains transcendent, like the divinity of the ineffable, invisible supreme god of Gnosticism, except where it is immanent in the form of the divine spark in humans."

Touched by an urban legend

Did you know NASA scientists proved that God really made the sun stand still just like it says in the book of Joshua?

Have you responded to the urgent prayer appeal from Mrs. Fatima Abass Yakubu Idris, the wealthy Nigerian widow cancer victim who wants to donate $7.2 million to your church?

Did you hear about the upcoming movie in which Jesus and his disciples are gay?

Surely you've seen this email bulletin: "CBS will be forced to discontinue 'Touched by an Angel' for using the word God in every program." Now, the disciples of atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair have "been granted a federal hearing on the same subject by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington D.C. Their petition, Number 2493, would ultimately pave the way to stop the reading of the gospel of our Lord and Savior, on the airwaves of America."

It's hard to believe that after 30 years and 30 million letters to the FCC, this false report continues to haunt pulpits, pews and the Internet.

Believe it. The O'Hair, FCC and "Touched by an Angel" email is back in the top 10 at the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society's sprawling "urban legends" site (www.snopes.com). And with the Angels era ending at CBS, Cathy Holden is bracing herself for more right-wing email blaming the show's demise on a vast left-wing conspiracy.

This will all end up in a revised entry at www.TruthMiners.com, her website that strives to convince other conservative Christians that passing along half-truths, scams and urban legends is not a doctrinally sound thing to do. Her niche-audience page includes 100 of the most common emails and links to larger secular research sites.

"This story will not die. I mean, 'Touched by an Angel' has been on for nine years," she said. "Anybody who reads a newspaper knows that everybody who's involved says it's time to end the show. But people who send these emails don't read newspapers. Then they get an email about that atheist O'Hair lady and they say, 'That's it!'

"You just want to tell them, 'Get over it. Go on with your life.' "

Holden became fascinated with urban legends when she helped a Baptist church outside Orlando start its website. The minute she signed on the junk emails rolled in, including a new incarnation of the O'Hair report. It took five minutes online to dig up the truth.

The church lady who forwarded the rumor said she did it for fun. What's the harm?

"I said, 'Wait just a minute. I just told you this is a lie and you don't care?' ... Ever since, I've been trying to get people to realize that a lie is a lie. This is not harmless. People get hurt. Christians have to believe truth matters," said Holden.

The O'Hair story originally was read in pulpits, shared at prayer meetings and printed on church mimeograph machines. Now people simply click "forward" and their email goes global.

Most of these messages take two forms -- outrage and inspiration. A major theme is that mainstream media hide the truth, said Holden.

"There's that vast conspiracy out there ... and it's keeping us from hearing all of the really bad stuff that our enemies are doing. The media also keep us from hearing any inspiring stories about good things that are happening. All that gets covered up, too. So we have to pass on these stories by email in order to beat the conspiracy. You see?"

So untraceable stories spread about President Bush leaving a reception line to evangelize a teen-ager, a pastor's wife preaching to passengers on the doomed Alaskan Airlines Flight 261 and a little girl's testimony converting actor John Wayne. The list goes on and on.

"The bigger the story the more we like it," said Holden. "We can be really syrupy, sappy people and we tend to fall for things that grab our heartstrings. It's all about our feelings. ... My ultimate hope is that if we can get people to care about what is going on in their Internet lives, then this new concern about truth may actually spread into other parts of their lives at home and at work and at church. Wouldn't that be interesting?"